Does "# of Accts Reporting a Balance" include installments or just revolvers when score is impacted?

[Trudy]

I realize I'm not clear on what is considered in # of accts reporting for scoring purposes.  I know MyFico report shows # of accts reporting which include installment/MTG. 

Not sure if a score change and/or a negative remark code due to # of accts reporting include installments;

And separately, does AZEO only take into acct revolvers?

[Anonymous]

AZEO means all zero except one and refers to revolvers, as you cannot zero out an installment loan without closing it.

You can get the negative reason statement with all revolvers reporting zero, but I can’t remember what version or flavors that was.

As for the metric that’s dinging you for the number of accounts with a balance, it could depend on version and flavor. Some believe it only applies to revolvers on version eight and it appears that way. I can’t say definitively for every version and flavor which one it is though.

[Trudy]

I never see that negative remark/reason code with my "8" scores.  But they always appear on all other scores with the exception of EX Bankcard 2 when I have 2 revolvers and and 2 installment loans reporting a balance.  This is out of 11 revolvers, but prior to September had a total of 10 revolvers.  This is pretty consistent for me with the occasional 3 revolvers.

This is probably why I'm not clear as it seems 2 out of 10 revolvers should not generate this remark as there's been some discussions regarding >30%.  But 4 out of 13 total accts seems reasonable (if there is such a thing in FICO Land).

Thanks for your reply.

[Anonymous]

I've seen it go by total number of accounts (not just revolvers) with a balance.  For example, when I tested this around a year and a half ago, at the time I had 8 total accounts on EQ; 7 revolvers, 1 installment loan.

"AZEO" for me was therefore 2 total accounts with a balance:  1 CC and 1 loan for 2/8 or 25% of my accounts with a balance.  In adding a small reported balance to a second revolver, I saw a 4 point drop on EQ Fico 8.  If the algorithm was looking at total accounts, I moved to 3/8 or 38%.  If the algorithm was looking at only revolvers, I went from 1/7 to 2/7, or 29%.  These numbers to me are pretty conclusive that total number of accounts (revolvers + loans) with a balance do matter to the algorithm, not just revolvers. 

[Trudy]

Thanks.  That was my conclusion but it seems most people reference revolvers only when discussing all manner of things related to # of accounts. 

Sounds like definitively the "one" in AZEO refers to revolvers only.  Not as definitive but likely, other scoring impacts due to # of accounts refers to all.

[Anonymous]

BBS Far from conclusive.

You assume only a 33% threshold BBS. If there is a 20% threshold, you going from 1/7>2/7 took you across it.

I believe it was Rev that told me it was revolvers only for version 8, we were testing older model thresholds.

Trudy, yes, "one" in AZEO is one, but yes, on some models, # of accounts may include non-revolvers. Thats one of the things Rev and I were working on determining for the mortgage models. I was analyzing so many things, and need to go back and finish analyzing for that. Just been so tired and busy lately.

[Anonymous]

Quick note. TransUnion is dinging me two points when I hit 3/20 revolvers or 4/21 accounts. I have went back-and-forth and reversed this like three times, so I think I’ve kind of confirmed it.

The question is, is it revolvers or accounts? Either way there’s a line at either 15% or 20%. And this is on TU FICO 08.

I can’t tell you can conclusively which one it is, but I can’t tell you conclusively there’s a line at one of those.

So the 33% mark? that’s just ONE threshold it’s not the lowest.

[Trudy]

Thanks for your insight Birdman7.  I can co-sign TU and often stated it is most sensitive to UTL and # of accts reporting a balance for my profile.  Whereas BBS ,I think, states TU is is his so called "bullet proof" bureau whereas EQ is mine and does not respond as negatively, if at all as TU with the same action.  I don't see that "line" with EQ and EX is currently an outlier for me.

Ergo, there's few absolutes and it's not designed to make  it easy to figure out and often proves profile specific.  But we try.... 

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind BBS has such a huge buffer, who knows how far he is beyond 850? (Lucky, no, earned!)

I definitely believe the thresholds are not profile specific, but I say that with the caveat that there may be an additional threshold or two in thin or young profiles or dirty for that matter, I don’t know enough about them.

That’s why I always cringe when everyone says 3 cards is enough. If you want to absolutely be able to optimize your score on every flavor you’re going to need five revolvers, so you can hit that 20% line.

Sure you can have an 850 and do great with three cards but to make it the easiest to get the score the highest with the least amount of penalties, you need five revolvers. There’s just no way mathematically around it, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Trudy Also remember that the algorithm can and is tweaked by each CRA, so there could be a line at TUwhere there is not at other bureaus or it could only be on certain scorecards at certain CRAs.